Christine Ferrigan v. Delray Beach

Case 9:22-cv-81088-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 1 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Christine Ferrigan, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.
)
v. ) Judge:
)
City of Delray Beach, Florida, ) Jury Trial Demanded
Terrence Moore, named in his individual )
and official capacities, and )
Hassan Hadjimiry, named in his individual )
and official capacities, )
)
Defendants )
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Christine Ferrigan (Plaintiff) files this complaint against Defendant City
of Delray Beach (City or Delray Beach), Defendant Terrence Moore, and Defendant
Hassan Hadjimiry (collectively, Defendants), alleging:
I. SUMMARY
1. Defendants harassed Christine Ferrigan for over two years and ultimately fired
her for exposing that partially treated sewer water was flowing into the City’s drinking
water causing some people and pets to become ill, among other water quality problems.
2. Ms. Ferrigan repeatedly raised her concerns about water contamination issues to
the City’s management and external government agencies. Given the City’s refusal to fix
its persistent public health failures and despite the City’s repeated efforts to shut her
down, she doggedly reported the problems to anyone who would listen, including, at
some point, to the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
and the press. Her managers and co-workers knew of her disclosures, partly because she
referenced her disclosures to regulators and PEER in written and oral workplace
communications and she was referenced in relevant media reports.
3. Her disclosures resulted in two lengthy regulatory investigations, including one
that ended in a Florida Department of Health (DOH) Consent Order (Consent Order) in
2021 finding at least nine regulatory violations, fining the City more than $1 million, and
requiring many corrective actions. 1
4. Although two regulators corroborated her disclosures in blistering public reports,
the City severely retaliated against Ms. Ferrigan in violation of her constitutional rights
to free speech and Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act’s (PWA), Fla. Stat. § 112.3187, anti-
retaliation provisions. She was marginalized, ignored, denied opportunities for
advancement in favor of less qualified or accomplished applicants, and ultimately fired
during an alleged and patently pretextual “restructuring” in early 2022.
5. The City’s incomprehensible decision to “shoot the messenger” rather than protect
the public health by promptly correcting the problems—particularly in the middle of a
worldwide pandemic and in the wake of the Flint, Michigan water crisis—put the public
at risk and chilled city employees from reporting regulatory and public health violations.
1Florida Dep’t of Health Palm Beach County v. City of Delray Beach, File No. WP 038-20,
Consent Order,
https://www.delraybeachfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10609/63774129432
9470000.
2
6. Ms. Ferrigan brings this action to vindicate her rights secured by the U.S.
Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and the PWA and to encourage other potential
whistleblowers to speak up, particularly when public health is at risk.
II. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Christine Ferrigan is a wastewater pretreatment professional with over
thirty years of experience in South Florida. Her skill set includes managing programs
related to water, wastewater, reclaimed water, pretreatment, backflow prevention, cross-
connections, toxicity, hazardous waste, water safety inspections, sampling (including
clean and ultra-clean testing), permitting, and evaluating water-related regulatory
compliance protocols, ordinances, and training. The City terminated Ms. Ferrigan on
January 26, 2022—five days after she filed a written internal complaint that her
management was bullying her for cooperating with the DOH investigators and within
three months of the issuance of DOH’s Consent Order.
8. Defendant Delray Beach is an incorporated municipality in Palm Beach County,
Florida, and a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. Defendant Moore is Delray Beach’s City Manager. At all relevant times, he was
engaged in managing, supervising, and controlling the operations, activities, affairs,
finances, property, personnel, and employment conditions of Delray Beach. Defendant
Moore is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant Moore is named in his individual
and official capacities. He is personally liable for violations of law and relief claimed
here.
3
10. Defendant Hadjimiry is Delray Beach’s Utility Director. At all relevant times, he
was engaged in managing, supervising, and controlling the operations, activities, affairs,
finances, property, personnel, and employment conditions of Delray Beach’s Utilities
Department. Defendant Hadjimiry is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant
Hadjimiry is named in his individual and official capacities. He is personally liable for
violations of law and relief claimed here.
III. JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
11. The Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. §§
1343 (a)(3). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
12. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c)
because it is the district in which the events or omissions establishing Ms. Ferrigan’s
claims occurred.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13. In June 2017, Ms. Ferrigan was hired by Delray Beach as an Industrial Pre-
Treatment Inspector.
14. For her first eighteen months of employment, Ms. Ferrigan received good
evaluations and sought opportunities for promotion.
Unsafe Drinking Water and Cross-Connection Problems
4
15. In late November 2018, the Delray Beach Utilities Department received several
phone calls from residents indicating that their drinking water was smelly, yellow with
algae, and sandy and that some residents and their pets were getting sick.
16. At the time, Ms. Ferrigan inspected parts of the City that had problems like those
being reported. During her inspections, some residents told Ms. Ferrigan that they
noticed the drinking water had changed around the time reclaimed water pipes were
connected to their properties.
17. The Utilities Department management first blamed the poor water quality on
ground disruption, which can cause sediment and other deposits in water pipes to
loosen, resulting in discolored water.
18. But relying on her extensive experience, Ms. Ferrigan informed her management,
both in writing and orally, that the water she saw during her inspections looked like
reclaimed water. She advised that ground disruption was not the probable cause of the
problem.
19. Reclaimed water is wastewater that has been partially treated to remove some
harmful organisms and substances, such as bacteria, viruses, and heavy metals. See
Delray Beach Code, Title 5, Chapter 52, Sec. 59.04. But reclaimed water still contains
elements that make the water unsafe to drink. For example, reclaimed water can contain
blood-borne pathogens, fecal matter, COVID-19, cryptosporidium, and many other
contaminants. Thus, in Delray Beach, reclaimed water may be used only for irrigation
and other purposes that do not involve the likely ingestion of the water. See id. at Sec.
59.13, 59.20.
5
20. A cross-connection is a point in a plumbing system where a nonpotable
substance can mingle with drinking water. See id. at Sec. 52.82. Backflow preventers are
devices that stop wastewater from flowing backward into drinking water pipes. Id.
21. Delray Beach relies on backflow preventers to ensure that dangerous
contaminants do not enter the community’s potable water system at cross-connection
points. See id. at Sec. 52.81. Yet as Ms. Ferrigan discovered and reported, the City’s
water utility pipes were plagued with inadequate backflow protections and other
problems.
22. Ms. Ferrigan knew from her experience as an inspector that reclaimed water
could contaminate drinking water systems when backflow preventers were not
installed or malfunctioned.
23. To confirm her suspicions that reclaimed water was flowing into residents’
drinking water, Ms. Ferrigan asked her management for a list of the backflow
preventers that had been installed. Management ignored that request.
24. On December 6, 2018, Ms. Ferrigan was directed by her management to initiate
cross-connection inspections beginning with the home at 801 S. Ocean Blvd, Delray
Beach.
25. Ms. Ferrigan’s inspection revealed a cross-connection contamination problem.
She promptly reported the discovery to her then-supervisor, Scott Solomon, Manager of
Water and Sewer. She told her supervisor to contact State Warning Point (a State Office
staffed around the clock that records, analyzes, and shares emergency information with
Federal, State, and County partners), DOH, and the Florida Department of
6
Environmental Protection, to help them respond appropriately. She also prepared to
take samples and flush the drinking water system at 801 S Ocean Blvd. to clear the
contaminants.
26. On or about December 19, 2018, Delray Beach’s Utilities Department
management reported the cross-connection issue to DOH but omitted that some
residents reported becoming sick.
27. During the first few months of 2019, Delray Beach fired its City Manager and
Utilities Department Director. Caryn Gardner-Young, the then-Assistant City Manager,
was also reassigned to Acting Director of Utilities.
28. The City Manager is the City’s chief administrative officer. City Charter, Art. IV.
– Administrative-Executive, Sec, 4.01. She is responsible for oversight of the City’s day-
to-day operations including employment decisions, offering leadership and guidance to
all departments and divisions of city government, as well as implementing policies and
programs as prioritized and directed by the Mayor and City Commission. See id. at 4.04.
The City Manager has final decision-making authority over the City’s departments,
policies, and employees.
29. The Director of Utilities—also known as Director of Environmental Services—
has “all powers, duties, and authorities” to control and manage the Utilities
Department, including the “authority and responsibility for the implementation of an
effective cross connection control program.” Delray Beach Code, Title 5, Chapter 59,
Sec. 59.01, 52.82. The Director of Utilities has final decision-making authority over the
Utilities Department’s policies and employees.
7
30. On or about March 22, 2019, Ms. Ferrigan met with Mr. Solomon and Deputy
Director of Utilities Victor Majtenyi about the ongoing calls from residents to the City
complaining about water quality issues—issues that some residents had raised with Ms.
Ferrigan personally as she did her cross-connection inspections. The residents’ calls
were noted by the Utility Department intake staff. Similarly, Ms. Ferrigan documented
the complaints she heard in person. During that meeting, Ms. Ferrigan provided Mr.
Solomon and Mr. Majtenyi with a written summary of water-quality related complaints
from over 20 residents in early 2019. Ms. Ferrigan’s summary document also explained
that many residents she interacted with were scared of the reclaimed water and were
unilaterally disconnecting from the reclaimed water system—a practice that presented
an independent set of health hazards.
31. On May 3, 2019, Ms. Ferrigan obtained a copy of the December 19, 2018, report to
the DOH concerning the cross-connection issue. She reviewed the report and
immediately realized that the former Utilities Department Director had failed to
disclose that residents reported the water was making them sick.
32. On or about May 6, 2019, in a phone call, Ms. Ferrigan told Ms. Gardner-Young
that the City’s report to the DOH about the water contamination because of cross-
connection problems was materially incomplete because it omitted that people reported
getting sick from the water. Ms. Gardner-Young asked Ms. Ferrigan to provide her with
a written chronology of the events.
33. On May 17, 2019, Ms. Ferrigan provided a 19-page document to Ms. Gardner-
Young explaining that significant drinking water contamination problems were
8
detected and investigated beginning in November 2018. Ms. Ferrigan detailed how the
drinking water contamination occurred because of cross-connection problems and that
the City mishandled its attempt to remedy the problem. Ms. Ferrigan noted that
residents reported getting sick, but that fact was not disclosed to DOH.
34. During that time frame, concerned residents would periodically call the City and
ask to speak to Ms. Ferrigan to relay their concerns about water quality. Mr. Majtenyi
and Mr. Solomon tried to silence Ms. Ferrigan by explicitly forbidding her from
communicating with any entity, internally and externally, about the City’s water issues.
Under the circumstances, it was clear to Ms. Ferrigan that the prohibited entities
included DOH and other regulators.
35. Ms. Ferrigan continued to discover cross-connection problems over the next
couple of years. She promptly documented and reported her findings to City
management as the issues arose.
36. The City and her management became increasingly hostile to Ms. Ferrigan as she
continued to raise her concerns. Management isolated her. Mr. Majtenyi told her to
retire. Given his role and long work history in the Utilities Department dating back at
least a decade, Mr. Majtenyi had his fingerprints on the problems Ms. Ferrigan was
exposing, and hewas upset at Ms. Ferrigan for disclosing them.
9
37. On January 2, 2020, apparently acting on a Delray Beach resident’s formal
complaint, 2 DOH official Steve Garcia contacted Ms. Ferrigan for information about the
City’s cross-connection problems.
38. On January 3, 2020, Ms. Ferrigan emailed Neal de Jesus, Delray Beach’s Fire
Chief and then-Acting City Manager, concerning the City’s reclaimed water issues
because of the cross-connections problems discovered in 2018. Ms. Ferrigan noted that
the City did not previously notify the public or DOH about the subject. She informed
Mr. de Jesus that DOH began investigating the matter after a resident complained to
DOH. Ms. Ferrigan advised that, in 2019, her management forbade her from speaking
with State health officials and that DOH had just contacted her. Given the pattern of
ongoing workplace hostility she was experiencing, Ms. Ferrigan asked Mr. de Jesus to
consider her email as a request for protection under Florida’s whistleblower law.
39. Ms. Ferrigan met with DOH on January 6, 2020, and provided information about
the problems with the City’s reclaimed water program and the retaliation she was
experiencing.
40. On January 30, 2020, Ms. Ferrigan informed Mr. de Jesus that she was
cooperating with DOH’s investigation into the City’s reclaimed water program. She
2 https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/delray-beach-city-failed-to-report-
residents-sickened-by-wastewat (“Leslie Campbell, who lives on South Ocean
Boulevard, called “to complain she was not adequately notified of the cross-connection
issue in her neighborhood. (The) cross-connection between drinking water and
reclaimed-water lines occurred in late 2018,” according to the complaint investigation
record. Campbell . . . told Health Department officials to contact Ferrigan for details. . . .
.”).
10
explained that DOH requested her report on the cross-connection she discovered on
December 6, 2018, and that she sent the copies to a DOH attorney on January 3, 2020.
New Utilities Director, PFAS Contamination, and Damage Control
41. Delray Beach hired Defendant Hadjimiry as the City’s Utilities Director in the
summer of 2020.
42. In August 2020, Defendant Hadjimiry received messages from residents
concerning water quality problems.
43. On August 4, 2020, the nonprofit organization Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) issued a press release entitled “Toxic PFAS Taints
Delray And Boynton Beach.” 3 Acting as a concerned private citizen and outside her
official duties, Ms. Ferrigan had communicated with PEER regarding water quality
issues and assisted PEER with obtaining a wastewater sample for testing before PEER
issued its press release.
44. On September 2, 2020, The Coastal Star quoted Defendant Hadjimiry saying that
Delray Beach’s reclaimed water system is the safest “in the country.” 4
45. On or about September 8, 2020, following Ms. Ferrigan’s disclosure to DOH that
Defendant Hadjimiry told her to stop including so much information on inspection
reports despite her explanation that DOH has specifically directed her to include that
3
https://peer.org/toxic-pfas-taints-delray-and-boynton-beach/ (accessed June 22,
2022).
4 https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/delray-beach-utility-director-safest-
reclaimed-water-system-in-co (accessed June 22, 2022).
11
information, the Utilities Department received a warning letter from the DOH for
failing to keep records and clean water storage tanks.
46. On or about September 10, 2020, the Astor Condominium association sent a letter
to the City expressing concern about water quality problems its residents had reported.
It asked for assurances to fix the problems and noted that its homeowners’ association
was paying high fees for utilities.
47. On or about September 21, 2020, the DOH reminded the Utilities Department of
the requirements for reporting cross-connection issues, and the Palm Beach County
Office of Inspector General (PB-OIG) issued a letter informing the City that its office
was investigating the City’s compliance with DOH’s reporting requirements.
48. On September 25, 2020, the PB-OIG sent a letter to Ms. Ferrigan informing her
that she met the statutory requirements for protection under the PWA.
Media Scrutiny Creates More Pressure on City Officials
49. On October 28, 2020, The Coastal Star published a story entitled “Delray Beach:
Timetable unclear on reclaimed water issues.” 5 The article stated, in part:
More than three months have passed since local DOH environmental
leaders met with Delray Beach utilities and legal staff to review 13 possible
violations in the city’s reclaimed water program. “The department expects
the report to contain a full accounting/inventory and compliance history of
all reclaimed water connections,” wrote Jorge Patino, water, and
wastewater administrator at the Florida DOH. “Any omissions may be
construed as reporting violations” . . .
5
https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/delray-beach-timetable-unclear-on-
reclaimed-water-issues (accessed June 22, 2022).
12
Patino was alerted to the latest issue by Christine Ferrigan, a Delray Beach
utilities inspector, who sent a Sept. 15 email to the environmental health
director and the local DOH legal director.
Ferrigan was hired in June 2017, six months before the city contracted with
Lanzo Construction to install the reclaimed water system in the southeast
portion of the barrier island . . .
In her email to the DOH, Ferrigan wrote about a Sept. 11 meeting with city
Utilities Director Hassan Hadjimiry and the department’s compliance
manager, at which she said she was told “to remove all history of several
locations that have shown prior reclaimed violations/cross connections.”
Ferrigan explained that the properties were located along South Ocean
Boulevard and had converted back to potable water for irrigation because
they had a cross connection.
A cross connection discovered there in December 2018 triggered this year’s

review of the citywide reclaimed water program. A woman who lived in
that area called the Tallahassee DOH that informed the local office of the
Florida DOH on Jan. 2 to say she was not adequately informed of the 2018
cross connection. A cross connection happens when drinking water pipes
are mistakenly connected to reclaimed water pipes.
50. On October 30, 2020, The Palm Beach Post published an article entitled “Nonprofit
warns of chemicals in Delray Beach water; city insists quality meets standards.” 6
51. On November 18, 2020, local CBS affiliate CBS12 News published a story entitled
“Environmental group says there are 'alarming' levels of chemicals in Delray Beach
water.” 7
6
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/2020/10/30/nonprofit-warns-
chemicals-delray-beach-water-city-insists-standards-met/6077244002/(accessed June
22, 2022).
7
https://cbs12.com/news/local/environmental-group-says-there-are-alarming-levels-
of-chemicals-in-delray-beach-water (accessed June 22, 2022).
13
52. As described below, Ms. Ferrigan told the Utilities Department management that
she helped PEER obtain the water sample underlying its report. Given her
outspokenness about her concerns and the nature of the articles, the City and her
management strongly suspected or knew that Ms. Ferrigan communicated her concerns
to the press.
The City Responds to Criticism and Scrutiny by Escalating Retaliation

53. The City and management escalated its retaliation campaign as the regulatory
investigations heated up. For example, periodically, Defendant Hadjimiry held fact-
finding meetings with Ms. Ferrigan and her colleagues- a team that consisted of Jerry
May, Paul DeCarolis and, ultimately, Ms. Magliore and Bradley Hasseler. During those
meetings, Defendant Hadjimiry was openly hostile to Ms. Ferrigan. He was
patronizing, spoke to her condescendingly, and would often reprimand her.
54. Management deliberately excluded her from meetings about cross-connection
issues – she only found out what was discussed at those meetings when attendees
shared the contents of those meetings.
55. As the most knowledgeable and experienced person on the team, Ms. Ferrigan
was the go-to person for anyone that had questions about water-related issues. Yet
management ignored her contributions. Indeed, Defendant Hadjimiry would often tell
her to retire.
56. On November 20, 2020, Ms. Ferrigan met with Defendant Hadjimiry, Ralph
Lugo, Manager of Water and Sewer, Alicia Magloire, Environmental Compliance
Manager, Mr. Majtenyi, and Juan Guevarez, Deputy Director of Utilities, and others to
14
discuss the PFAS test results published by PEER that the media covered. During the
meeting, Ms. Ferrigan revealed that she was the whistleblower who provided PEER
with the samples it had tested.
57. On November 29, 2020, Ms. Ferrigan applied for the newly created Cross
Connection Control Coordinator position. She had served as a de facto Coordinator for
some time without receiving pay commensurate with her responsibilities. In her de
facto role, Ms. Ferrigan laid the groundwork and implemented the cross-connection
control program, wrote the program’s protocols, knew the history and the area, and
discovered and sought correction of the cross-connections and violations. The City
passed over Ms. Ferrigan despite her unique qualifications for the position.
58. On December 11, 2020, PB-OIG requested additional information for its
investigation. Ms. Ferrigan then informed Ms. Magloire that she might have to come in
on a Saturday to gather additional information for PB-OIG. In turn, Ms. Magloire
informed Defendant Hadjimiry of Ms. Ferrigan’s intentions. Defendant Hadjimiry
promptly instructed Ms. Ferrigan during a meeting not to come into the office on
Saturday and that she was prohibited from talking to PB-OIG. During the meeting,
Defendant Hadjimiry relayed to Ms. Ferrigan that he would inform PB-OIG that Ms.
Ferrigan could no longer speak to them.
59. Ms. Ferrigan’s disclosures to the DOH, PB-OIG, and non-governmental entities
such as PEER and journalists, were made on her initiative, outside the scope of her
official duties, and the vast majority were made after work hours. She made them
because she believed that the public welfare was being compromised by the City’s
15
shameful indifference to its residents’ welfare. That her disclosures were outside the
scope of her official duties was underscored when Defendant Hadjimiry, her direct
supervisor and the Director of her department, expressly prohibited her from
cooperating with government regulators.
60. On December 13, 2020, Ms. Ferrigan disclosed to the PB-OIG investigator that
she was instructed not to cooperate with them.
61. On or about January 7, 2021, the DOH developed a Civil Penalty Authorization
Memorandum (Memo), which describes the nature of the City’s public health and
similar violations related to its drinking water. These were violations that Ms. Ferrigan
reported. Ms. Ferrigan is the unnamed “City of Delray Beach Employee” referenced on
page 2 of the Memo. The Memo recommended the Director approve a nearly $3 million
penalty to negotiate a Consent Order with the City. DOH description of the over a
decade-long violations and the potential for $3 million dollar penalty was promptly
reported on by the local press. 8
62. On April 1, 2021, the City passed over Ms. Ferrigan for the newly created Cross-
Connection Coordinator position in favor of the lesser qualified Bradley Hasseler. Ms.
Ferrigan had far more relevant experience than Hasseler, with over three decades of
work experience in environmental issues, particularly in cross-connection matters
8See, e.g., https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/delray-beach-water-woes-may-

bring-3m-in-fines (accessed June 22, 2020); https://cm.palmbeachpost.com/offers-
reg/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.palmbeachpost.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%
2Fdelray%2F2021%2F01%2F20%2Fdelray-faces-3-million-fine-drinking-water-
violations%2F4227580001%2F (accessed June 22, 2020);
https://www.bocamag.com/delray-fined/ (accessed June 22, 2020).
16
including in management positions, since about 1998. In addition, unlike Mr. Hasseler,
Ms. Ferrigan was well versed in Florida’s Reclaimed Water Program and had deep
institutional knowledge of Delray Beach’s water problems. Mr. Hassler had no
background in Florida water laws and regulations, no experience in Florida’s reclaimed
water programs, lacked required Florida credentials, and had limited experience with
cross-connection issues.
63. Knowing of her deep expertise and experience, the City often ordered Ms.
Ferrigan to train employees (including Ms. Hasseler and Ms. Magliore) on how to
do their jobs despite having passed over Ms. Ferrigan for those very positions.
Palm Beach County Office of Inspector General Finds City Concealed

Residents’ Illnesses and the Harassment and Retaliation Continues
64. In early April 2021, Delray Beach removed Ms. Ferrigan from conducting cross-
connection inspections.
65. On May 6, 2021, the PB-OIG issued Investigative Report 2020-0007, entitled
Delray Beach Reclaimed Water Reporting. The report confirmed Ms. Ferrigan’s allegation
that the City hid reports of sickness or illness that had been received about a cross-
contamination incident in their report to the DOH. Ms. Ferrigan’s disclosures are noted
throughout the report. The report begins by stating “[i]n February 2020, the Palm Beach
County Office of Inspector General (OIG) received a complaint from a whistleblower
(WB) alleging City of Delray Beach (City) officials were intentionally concealing from
state officials that reclaimed water had contaminated the City’s drinking water system
and that City residents reported being sickened by the contaminated water.” Ms.
17
Ferrigan’s response to the report was included as an attachment to it. City officials
knew or strongly suspected that the whistleblower being referred to was Ms. Ferrigan.
66. On July 26, 2021, Ms. Ferrigan received an unjustifiably low evaluation (3.31/5).
In past years, Ms. Ferrigan received four-plus evaluation scores. Ironically, even as
management retaliated against her, the City was forced to concede in the evaluation
that she “positively contributed to the overall performance of the cross-connection
control program, reclaimed and industrial pre-treatment programs.”
67. On September 7, 2021, Ms. Ferrigan met with Defendant Moore, Assistant
Human Resources Director Dot Bast, and Human Resources Specialist B.J. Clay to
discuss ongoing retaliation and bullying because she cooperated with government
investigations into her disclosures of water contamination. During the meeting,
Defendant Moore and others claimed they took Ferrigan’s allegations seriously and
would investigate them.
DOH Finds Safe Drinking Water Violations Resulting in Consent Order
68. On September 30, 2021, NBC affiliate WPTV 5 reported DOH’s plan to sue the
City “to enforce the city’s alleged violations of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act after
the parties were unable to reach an agreement on a proposed consent order.” 9
69. Between June 2019-October 2021, Ms. Ferrigan was contacted many times for
advice by employees who wanted to disclose water quality problems they found but
9
https://www.wptv.com/news/local-news/investigations/florida-department-of-
health-to-sue-delray-beach-over-alleged-water-violations (accessed on July 22, 2022).
18
feared retaliation. It is common knowledge among City employees that the City has a
well-established pattern of retaliating against those who raise concerns.
70. These concerned but scared employees reported that Defendant Hadjimiry had
directed Cross-Connection staff to remove information that was required to be reported
in the City’s database concerning backflows. In November 2021, again acting outside
the scope of official duties, Ms. Ferrigan disclosed these concerns to Rafael Reyes,
Director of Environmental Public Health for DOH’s Palm Beach County office.
71. City employees also reported to Ms. Ferrigan that management was falsifying
and concealing adverse information related to water treatment.
72. The Utilities Department continued to receive complaints from customers
concerning yellow or brownish water with suspended solids. A Longhorn Steakhouse
in Delray Beach had to temporarily close because its water purification system could
not clear up the water.
73. Ms. Ferrigan reported the problems and concerns relayed to her to Mr. Reyes
and the DOH’s Chief Legal Counsel, Catherine Linton. Ms. Ferrigan told the health
officials everything the employees told her and advised that there were pictures to
support the concerns.
74. On November 12, 2021, DOH issued a Consent Order requiring the City of
Delray Beach to pay a fine and costs totaling $1,021,193.90. The Order found the City
failed to implement its Cross Connection Control Program from the date of its adoption
in 2008. It also found the City violated at least nine regulatory standards concerning its
cross-connection program and lists the City’s violations, including that the City
19
“submitted one or more false statements.” The Consent Order mandates a timetable
for corrective actions and required the City to issue a public notice of its failures, among
other things. 10
75. On November 23, 2021, Ms. Ferrigan, acting outside the scope of official duties,
again contacted Mr. Reyes to report continuing problems with backflows in the City’s
water systems.
76. On December 3, 2021, the City issued a notice acknowledging:
The City of Delray Beach Water Utilities Department (City) failed to

implement its Cross Connection Control Program from the date of its
adoption in 2008 until February 4, 2020, as required by Rule 62-555.360 of
the Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the City failed to:
1. Conduct inspections to ensure its distribution system was protected
from hazards.
2. Ensure backflow prevention was installed on all properties where a
health, pollution or system hazard to drinking water exists.
3. Evaluate customer’s premises for cross-connections and adequate
backflow protection whenever a customer connects to reclaimed water.
4. Conduct initial and follow-up inspections, testing and complaint
investigations as well as periodic inspections of customer connections. 11
77. On December 29, 2021, The Coastal Star published a story entitled, “Delray Beach:
City pays fine, published admission of neglect in water program.”12 The article noted
the City was required to admit four errors that occurred during the period 2008 through
early 2020. “The city failed to inspect that its distribution system was protected from
10
https://www.delraybeachfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10609/63774129432
9470000 (Consent Order, Sec. 5) (accessed June 22, 2022);
11
https://www.delraybeachfl.gov/government/city-departments/utilities/public-
notice-fdoh-consent-order.
12 https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/delray-beach-city-pays-fine-publishes-
admission-of-neglect-in-wat (accessed June 15, 2022) (accessed June 22, 2022).
20
hazards; to ensure backflow preventers were installed at each reclaimed water site; to
evaluate each location for cross-connections and backflow preventers, and to conduct
initial and follow-up inspections and investigate customer complaints.”
Ms. Ferrigan Reports Water Treatment Problems,

Submits Retaliation Complaint, and is Promptly Terminated
78. On January 13, 2022, Ms. Ferrigan, again acting outside the scope of official
duties, contacted the DOH because water treatment operators shared their concerns
with her about brownish water with suspended solids leaving the water treatment
plant, customers were complaining about the water, and that City Distribution Crews
were told to flush lines.
79. On January 21, 2022, Ms. Ferrigan submitted a retaliation complaint to the City’s
Human Resources Department outlining the history of harassment and retaliation she
experienced because of her reporting to regulators and cooperation with their
subsequent investigations.
80. For example, her complaint describes how:
[On] 9-15-20 I contacted DOH to report that in a meeting with Hadjimiry &
Magliore (9-11-20) I was ordered not to report any history on a location. I
explained to Hadjimiry that I was told by DOH to include everything. He
was not happy. See email 9-15-20. Hadjimiry has told several employees to
stay away from me because I am trouble.
81. The internal complaint also described how Defendant Hadjimiry retaliated against
her by exploiting a Delray Beach resident’s frustration relating to a cross-connection
inspection. The resident angrily berated Ms. Ferrigan and repeatedly told her that
21
Defendant Hadjimry said to him that she was responsible for the City’s trouble with
regulators.
82. The City acknowledged receipt of Ms. Ferrigan’s complaint. Defendant Moore,
Defendant Hadjimiry, Ms. Bast, Ms. Clay, and others were aware of Ms. Ferrigan’s
complaint.
83. On the morning of January 26, 2022, with no notice, Delray Beach terminated Ms.
Ferrigan. Ms. Bast escorted her out of the building in front of other employees.
84. Thus, the City “eliminated her position” within three months of the DOH
Consent Order and within five days of her internal written report that she was being
bullied because she told DOH that the City instructed her to stop cooperating with
DOH’s investigations into the water issues.
85. Neither Ms. Ferrigan’s whistleblowing nor the City’s retaliation were isolated
occurrences. Her ongoing disclosures were a source of vital information to government
regulators from 2018 until her termination. The regulatory pressure and negative
publicity about the City’s water problems escalated as she continued to report the City’s
failures to regulators in near real-time. Despite the pattern of escalating workplace
hostility directly resulting from her protected activity—a fact that she also raised in a
September 2021 meeting about the ongoing retaliation with Defendant Moore, Ms. Bast,
and Ms. Clayton—she persisted.
86. The September 2021 and January 2022 internal complaints highlighting Ms.
Ferrigan’s cooperation with DOH was further confirmation of what the City knew or
suspected – that DOH’s imposition of a $1 million fine in November 2021 resulted from,
22
and was the culmination of, Ms. Ferrigan’s whistleblowing about the City’s cross-
connection problems.
87. The City’s asserted reason for her termination was an alleged “reorganization” to
close the City’s $10 million budget gap for 2021-22. That was pretext. Her position was
specifically funded in the 2021-2022 budget adopted four months earlier, on September
23, 2021. 13 In addition, to Ms. Ferrigan’s knowledge, hers was the only non-vacant
position the City eliminated in the alleged restructuring – not to mention that the
elimination of her $53 thousand salary had, at most, a negligible effect on a $10 million
budget gap.
88. Delray Beach does not have an official grievance procedure through which Ms.
Ferrigan could protest her unlawful termination.
V. COUNTS
Count I: Violation of U.S. Const. Amend. 1, 14; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
89. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 88.
90. Ms. Ferrigan publicly spoke and disclosed to regulators, PEER, and the media, as
a citizen, on matters of public concern, including, but not limited to public safety and
problems with Delray Beach’s water quality. Ms. Ferrigan’s right to speak out on these
and other matters of public concern was protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The public has a vital interest in free and open
discussion on issues of public importance.
13https://www.delraybeachfl.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10071/6376903063
59930000 at page 438/570 (IPP Inspector) (accessed June 22, 2022).
23
91. On learning that Ms. Ferrigan had spoken out on matters of public concern,
Defendants Delray Beach, Moore, and Hadjimiry, separately, and/or jointly, engaged in
actions, omissions, and decisions, aimed at denying her the right to speak and write on
a matter of public concern. Defendants’ actions, omissions, and decisions concerning
Ms. Ferrigan were made with reckless or callous disregard for Ms. Ferrigan’s rights and
were meant to cause, and have caused, her to suffer humiliation and reputational harm,
emotional and mental injuries, pain, suffering, and financial and other adverse
consequences, for which she seeks full damages and make-whole relief.
92. The Defendant’s actions, omissions, and decisions made individually,
separately, and/or jointly, were taken in response to, and in retaliation for, Ms.
Ferrigan’s exercise of her constitutional and lawful right to speak and write on matters
of public concern, in violation of her rights safeguarded under the First and Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and laws in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
93. Defendants’ justifications for the adverse actions are false and pretextual.
94. Defendants’ actions, omissions, and decisions, as alleged above, make Delray
Beach liable to Ms. Ferrigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the authority and actual
decisions of Defendants Delray Beach, Moore, and Hadjimiry. In addition, such
unlawful actions, omissions, and decisions, as alleged above, were based on Defendants
Moore’s and Hadjimiry’s policymaking and final decision-making authority and were
based on the City’s policy, custom, and practice.
95. Defendants’ actions, omissions, and decisions done separately, and/or jointly, as
alleged above, were done in a knowing, willful, reckless manner and in bad faith, and
24
violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person in Defendants’ place
would have known.
Count II: Violation of Fla. Const. Art. I, § 4
96. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 88.
97. The Florida Constitution provides:
Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all

subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law
shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the
press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation
the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as
defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party
shall be acquitted or exonerated.
Fla. Const. Art. I, § 4.
98. This constitutional protection extends to Delray Beach employees.
99. At all material times, Ms. Ferrigan was a Florida resident.
100. On learning that Ms. Ferrigan had spoken out on matters of public concern,
Defendants Delray Beach, Moore, and Hadjimiry separately, and/or jointly, engaged in
actions, omissions, and decisions, aimed at denying Plaintiff the right to speak and
write freely on a matter of public concern. Defendants’ actions, omissions, and
decisions, including, but not limited to, terminating Ms. Ferrigan, made with reckless or
callous disregard for Ms. Ferrigan’s rights and were designed to cause, and have
caused, her to suffer humiliation and reputation harm, emotional and mental injuries,
pain, suffering, and financial and other adverse consequences, for which she seeks full
damages and make-whole relief.
25
101. The Defendant’s actions, omissions, and decisions made separately, and/or
jointly, were taken in response to, and in retaliation for, Ms. Ferrigans’ exercise of her
constitutional and lawful right to speak and write on a matter of public concern, in
violation of her rights safeguarded under Article I, Section 4 of the Florida
Constitution.
102. Defendants’ reasons for the adverse actions are false and pretextual.
103. The Defendants’ actions, omissions, and decisions made separately, and/or
jointly, as alleged above, were done in a knowing, willful, and reckless manner and in
bad faith, and violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable
person in Defendants’ place would have known.
Count III: Violation of the PWA, Fla. Stat. § 112.3187
104. Plaintiff incorporates by Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference
paragraphs 1 through 88.
105. At all material times, Ms. Ferrigan was a Delray Beach employee. The City of
Delray Beach is covered by the PWA.
106. Ms. Ferrigan made protected disclosures about the Defendant’s violations of
federal and Florida law, and Defendant’s gross waste, mismanagement, and neglect of
duty, all of which created and presented a substantial and special danger to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
107. Ms. Ferrigan made her written disclosures on her own initiative to the
appropriate local officials. Ms. Ferrigan also participated in regulatory investigations
relating to her disclosures.
26
108. Ms. Ferrigan’s (i) written disclosures and (ii) participation in regulatory
investigations are each a protected activity.
109. Ms. Ferrigan suffered adverse employment actions, including harassment,
bullying, marginalization, unjustifiably low performance evaluations, denial of
promotions, and termination.
110. Ms. Ferrigan’s protected activities were the proximate cause of the Defendant’s
adverse employment actions. Defendant’s adverse employment actions constitute
illegal retaliation under the PWA.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests that this Court grant relief against each of the Defendant,
individually, separately, and/or jointly:
a. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants have willfully and
wrongfully violated their constitutional and legal obligations to Ms. Ferrigan
and the public, and deprived the Ms. Ferrigan of her rights, privileges,
protections, compensation, and entitlements under law;
b. Enter a declaratory judgment that the City and its management were and are
hostile toward Ms. Ferrigan and other employees who engage in conduct
protected by Florida law;
c. Reinstating Ms. Ferrigan to the same or equivalent position held before she was
terminated and requiring her promotion to the position of Environmental
Resources Compliance Manager, or a comparable position with the same or
higher salary and benefits, within 90 days of her reinstatement;
27
1. Or, as an alternative to reinstatement, awarding Ms. Ferrigan reasonable
front pay.
d. Awarding Ms. Ferrigan back pay and damages for benefits lost or diminished
because she was unlawfully denied promotion and due to her termination;
e. Awarding Ms. Ferrigan pre-and post-judgment interest;
f. Awarding Ms. Ferrigan her attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of litigation;
g. Awarding Ms. Ferrigan compensatory damages against the Defendants, and
punitive damages against Defendant Moore and Defendant Hadjimiry, for her
pain, emotional and mental suffering, stress, humiliation, reputational harm,
and other losses; and
h. Awarding such other relief as may be just and appropriate.
X. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury trial by jury on all claims triable to a jury.
Date: July 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

s/Leslie M. Kroeger
Leslie M. Kroeger
Florida Bar No.: 989762
Rachael Flanagan
Florida Bar No.: 1018544
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
11780 US Highway One Suite 500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
(561) 515-1400 Phone
Emails: lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
rflangan@cohenmilstein.com
Richard E. Condit (pro hac vice pending)

Cleveland Lawrence III (pro hac vice pending)
28
C. Ezra Bronstein (pro hac vice pending)

Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Fax: (202) 822-4997
Email: rcondit@findjustice.com
clawrence@findjustice.com
ebronstein@findjustice.com
29

Christine Ferrigan v. Delray Beach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christine Ferrigan v. Delray Beach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 9:22-cv-81088-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2022 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Hassan Hadjimiry (collectively, Defendants), alleging:

communications and she was referenced in relevant media reports.

3. Her disclosures resulted in two lengthy regulatory investigations, including one

requiring many corrective actions. 1

4. Although two regulators corroborated her disclosures in blistering public reports,

retaliation provisions. She was marginalized, ignored, denied opportunities for

advancement in favor of less qualified or accomplished applicants, and ultimately fired

during an alleged and patently pretextual “restructuring” in early 2022.

the public health by promptly correcting the problems—particularly in the middle of a

whistleblowers to speak up, particularly when public health is at risk.

7. Plaintiff Christine Ferrigan is a wastewater pretreatment professional with over

related to water, wastewater, reclaimed water, pretreatment, backflow prevention, cross-

connections, toxicity, hazardous waste, water safety inspections, sampling (including

clean and ultra-clean testing), permitting, and evaluating water-related regulatory

three months of the issuance of DOH’s Consent Order.

8. Defendant Delray Beach is an incorporated municipality in Palm Beach County,

Florida, and a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

engaged in managing, supervising, and controlling the operations, activities, affairs,

finances, property, personnel, and employment conditions of Delray Beach. Defendant

finances, property, personnel, and employment conditions of Delray Beach’s Utilities

Department. Defendant Hadjimiry is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant

violations of law and relief claimed here.

III. JURISIDICTION AND VENUE

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

evaluations and sought opportunities for promotion.

Unsafe Drinking Water and Cross-Connection Problems

connected to their properties.

loosen, resulting in discolored water.

blood-borne pathogens, fecal matter, COVID-19, cryptosporidium, and many other

20. A cross-connection is a point in a plumbing system where a nonpotable

21. Delray Beach relies on backflow preventers to ensure that dangerous

contaminants do not enter the community’s potable water system at cross-connection

preventers that had been installed. Management ignored that request.

25. Ms. Ferrigan’s inspection revealed a cross-connection contamination problem.

Environmental Protection, to help them respond appropriately. She also prepared to

26. On or about December 19, 2018, Delray Beach’s Utilities Department

residents reported becoming sick.

Utilities Department Director. Caryn Gardner-Young, the then-Assistant City Manager,

was also reassigned to Acting Director of Utilities.

to-day operations including employment decisions, offering leadership and guidance to

policies, and employees.

29. The Director of Utilities—also known as Director of Environmental Services—

Department, including the “authority and responsibility for the implementation of an

Utilities Department’s policies and employees.

an independent set of health hazards.

a written chronology of the events.

Young explaining that significant drinking water contamination problems were

drinking water contamination occurred because of cross-connection problems and that

included DOH and other regulators.

management as the issues arose.

exposing, and hewas upset at Ms. Ferrigan for disclosing them.

37. On January 2, 2020, apparently acting on a Delray Beach resident’s formal

City’s cross-connection problems.

New Utilities Director, PFAS Contamination, and Damage Control

42. In August 2020, Defendant Hadjimiry received messages from residents

concerning water quality problems.

43. On August 4, 2020, the nonprofit organization Public Employees for

issued its press release.

Defendant Hadjimiry told her to stop including so much information on inspection

reclaimed-water-system-in-co (accessed June 22, 2022).

failing to keep records and clean water storage tanks.